Evolution of floral display in <i>Eichhornia paniculata</i> (Pontederiaceae): genetic correlations between flower size and number
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evolution of floral display is thought to be constrained by trade-offs between the size and number of flowers and inflorescences. We grew in the glasshouse 60 maternal families from each of two Brazilian populations of the annual herb, Eichhornia paniculata. We measured flower size, daily flower number, and total flower number per inflorescence, and two indices of module size, leaf area and age at flowering. We also assessed the size and number of inflorescences produced over 6 weeks. All floral traits exhibited significant heritable variation, some of which was due to genetic variation in module size. Genetic (maternal family) correlations between daily and total flower number did not differ from 1.0, indicating that display size (daily flower number) cannot evolve independently from total flower number per inflorescence. Genetic correlations between flower size and daily flower number ranged from negative to positive (r=–0.78 to +0.84), depending on population and inflorescence. Positive correlations occurred when variation in investment per inflorescence was high so that some families produced both larger and more flowers. These correlations became zero when we controlled for variation in module size. Families that flowered later produced fewer, larger inflorescences (r=–0.33, –0.85). These data support theoretical predictions regarding the combined effects of variation in resource acquisition and allocation on traits involved in trade-offs, and they emphasize the hierarchical organization of floral displays. Our results imply that patterns of resource allocation among inflorescences influence evolutionary changes in flower size and number per inflorescence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".